Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

We’re on social media!

The Round TableHave a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be.
Come be a knight.

One CEO says he's willing to go to outrageous lengths to protect his right to use a gun.

James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills, claimed in a video posted on YouTube and Facebook that he would "start killing people" if President Barack Obama decides to take executive action to pass further gun control policies, Raw Story reports.

In a frenetic address to the camera, Yeager puts a call out to other gun rights advocates to "load your damn mags" and "get ready to fight" in what he claims will turn into a "civil war" if gun control measures in the country get any stricter.

SEE FULL VIDEO BELOW -- WARNING ADULT LANGUAGE

Yeager's diatribe was a response to a recent statement from Vice President Joe Biden indicating that Obama was exploring using executive orders to address gun policy. Yeager accused Obama of being a "dictator" for considering taking action without Congress.

After the massacre in Newtown, Conn. last month, Obama instituted a task force lead by Biden to come up with policy proposals to deal with gun violence no later than this month.

The Washington Post reported that the White House is considering more expansive measures to tackle gun violence than simply reinstating a ban on assault weapons and large magazines. Biden's working group will consider initiatives such as a national database to track sale and movement of weapons and universal background checks for gun buyers.

Yeager isn't the first gun advocate to loudly voice his opinion about potential action on Capitol Hill. On Monday, Radio Host Alex Jones went on a scathing pro-gun tirade on "Piers Morgan Tonight" claiming that, "1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! Doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street, begging for 'em to have their guns taken. We will not relinquish them. Do you understand?!"

Yeager recently edited the video he put up on YouTube to not include his threat to "start killing people." The original video was preserved by Raw Story and can be seen below.

Well no wonder, he's going to lose his job if they ban guns lol.
And this is exactly why guns should be banned, so stuffs like this wouldn't happen LOL.
And did the cops or anyone go to his place for threatening to kill people? ._.

I would laugh at how unaware this fool is of what he's just done to hurt his own position, but I know there are hundreds, thousands, and probably millions of similar fools in America who wouldn't get the irony and who also probably have guns themselves so I'm really worried more than anything that we have such a gun problem something like this can be said in the first place.

This guy needs to be put in a straightjacket & shipped to a mental ward ASAP. As much as it pains me to admit it, people like him are only going to reinforce the case for those that are in favor of gun control.

Do people like this need guns?Honestly, this man sounds crazy to me. I dont think so, someone who is so quick to say that he will kill people for trying to take his guns away. By the way no where in the article do I see that they will actually be taking guns away from people, rather requiring more background checks and regulating their sale more so they hopefully wont fall into the wrong hands. He is giving himself and his cause a bad name.

I would laugh at how unaware this fool is of what he's just done to hurt his own position, but I know there are hundreds, thousands, and probably millions of similar fools in America who wouldn't get the irony and who also probably have guns themselves so I'm really worried more than anything that we have such a gun problem something like this can be said in the first place.

Get off the internet, all of you. Say some murderer came up to you with a gun. If you don't have a gun yourself to defend with, you are automatically a dead man. Even if guns were banned in America, they can still get them elsewhere; if guns are banned in every country on the planet, they make their own. There's no stopping criminals unless you fight back yourself; these guys get clever and if you can't defend yourself, you're dead.

Get off the internet, all of you. Say some murderer came up to you with a gun. If you don't have a gun yourself to defend with, you are automatically a dead man. Even if guns were banned in America, they can still get them elsewhere; if guns are banned in every country on the planet, they make their own. There's no stopping criminals unless you fight back yourself; these guys get clever and if you can't defend yourself, you're dead.

So what you're saying is in that situation, you want people to be a hero and fight back? Even if you do fight back, you might be dead anyway if the guy is a psycho with an itchy trigger finger. That goes for criminals as well. They are just as bad as the idiot in that video.

Get off the internet, all of you. Say some murderer came up to you with a gun. If you don't have a gun yourself to defend with, you are automatically a dead man. Even if guns were banned in America, they can still get them elsewhere; if guns are banned in every country on the planet, they make their own. There's no stopping criminals unless you fight back yourself; these guys get clever and if you can't defend yourself, you're dead.

Well the problem is, not many people care to get, or can afford, illegal guns.

For example, a handgun, let's say, is 50 grams. (I don't actually know how much a handgun is, so I'm going a bit low on my estimate.) Whereas 50 grams of cocaine would cost at least $5000, all you can sell with one handgun, at a reasonable price, would be at most $100, or somewhere around there.

So either, it's not worth smuggling, or it's going to be insanely expensive.

And let's be real here - the people who usually threaten people with guns, are pretty much rogue crazies. Not the richest people on the block.

And most people who are willing to put in such a big amount of effort to kill someone aren't going to be stopped anyways - think about all the people that make shootouts and whatnot. They just act on the moment, they don't plan things out.

Listen people. Criminals will go to great lengths to commit crimes. By "people," what the guy means is people who come and try to disarm him. He's not crazy; he really is defending our rights. I agree with him, though I won't necessarily take part: there will be war. And it's not even really defending our rights, per se, it's defending our right to defend ourselves. Take a look at places like Britain and Sweden. In those places, you can't have guns and you can have guns under license, respectively, but you are expressly banned from defending yourself. If a robber or murderer comes into your house to rob or murder you, you have to let them do it. Even if the cops hear about it, they don't do anything about it. That happened there because of people like you, and that is what America will with little doubt come to if gun control laws are passed.

Listen people. Criminals will go to great lengths to commit crimes. By "people," what the guy means is people who come and try to disarm him. He's not crazy; he really is defending our rights. I agree with him, though I won't necessarily take part: there will be war. And it's not even really defending our rights, per se, it's defending our right to defend ourselves. Take a look at places like Britain and Sweden. In those places, you can't have guns and you can have guns under license, respectively, but you are expressly banned from defending yourself. If a robber or murderer comes into your house to rob or murder you, you have to let them do it. Even if the cops hear about it, they don't do anything about it. That happened there because of people like you, and that is what America will with little doubt come to if gun control laws are passed.

Paragraph 1: Where are you getting your information? States with lax gun laws, such as Kansas and Alaska, for example, have quite low murder rates, and at least in Alaska it's big news to hear about a homicide. Then you take places like NYC and DC, where guns are banned and extremely hard to get, respectively. Just LOOK at their murder rates! It's ridiculous!

Paragraph 2: What I'm saying is that gun laws hurt the law-abiding instead of criminals. To quote Paul Ryan, "Criminals by definition don't obey the law." If guns are banned, the law-abiding people will go "okay" and bury their guns. Criminals on the other hand go either to Mexico or somewhere else or make their own guns, and then when they invade a law-abiding person's home the latter can't defend themselves. Gun laws actually increase the crime rate, not the other way around.

Paragraph 3: While assault rifles and such aren't really necessary, they do come out to be useful sometime, especially in times of war. Other guns are necessary for self-defence. Take a look at Britain and Sweden, for example. A buttload of types of guns are illegal there, and it's illegal to defend yourself. As I've said before, if a murderer or robber decides he wants to murder or rob you, you have to let him do it or you can face years in prison. The state of New York is actually considering this. Imagine being in the position of the guy being murdered or robbed, and being unable to defend yourself.

Re: Murder rates. New York has 19 million people. Alaska has 700,000. Of course there are going to be more murders in NY.

Re: criminals. You seem to think that there is a black and white distinction between "criminals" and "law abiding citizens." Most people have committed some crime, from jaywalking, speeding, downloading music, shoplifting, assault, and upwards of very serious crimes. Everyone obeys most laws. Criminals obey most laws most of the time and are LACs until they decide to break the law. This CEO has probably been law abiding his whole life, but if he were to kill someone he'd become a criminal. So which would he be? Criminal or not?

Someone come in here and help me word this properly because I don't think I'm getting across the point clearly enough. Criminals are not criminal in everything they do and don't break every law. If you restrict gun purchases many "criminals" will follow that law.

Re: criminals. You seem to think that there is a black and white distinction between "criminals" and "law abiding citizens." Most people have committed some crime, from jaywalking, speeding, downloading music, shoplifting, assault, and upwards of very serious crimes. Everyone obeys most laws. Criminals obey most laws most of the time and are LACs until they decide to break the law. This CEO has probably been law abiding his whole life, but if he were to kill someone he'd become a criminal. So which would he be? Criminal or not?

By criminals, in this case I mean gun criminals. He would become a criminal if he just decided to shoot somebody for no reason. If he shoots somebody who's invading his home to try and take away his guns, he's defending his property and therefore isn't a criminal. By "killing people," he means the latter. He probably won't kill anyone unless they try to invade his home and steal his guns.

The key word in this sentence is many. Many is not most or all. Though some criminals would follow the law, they wouldn't have been gun criminals to begin with and would more likely be those petty criminals who, for your example, jaywalked or something like that. Gun criminals are a completely different story; the large majority of gun criminals have their heart set on shooting or pistol-whipping somebody to death and the majority of those people will stop at nothing to do it. What gun control does is cause the victim to be unable to defend himself, so if a criminal comes up to him and points a gun at him, he's dead without a doubt. And in most countries or cities (e.g. Britain or New York) with gun control in effect, the cops do nothing about it.

Paragraph 1: Where are you getting your information? States with lax gun laws, such as Kansas and Alaska, for example, have quite low murder rates, and at least in Alaska it's big news to hear about a homicide. Then you take places like NYC and DC, where guns are banned and extremely hard to get, respectively. Just LOOK at their murder rates! It's ridiculous!

Paragraph 2: What I'm saying is that gun laws hurt the law-abiding instead of criminals. To quote Paul Ryan, "Criminals by definition don't obey the law." If guns are banned, the law-abiding people will go "okay" and bury their guns. Criminals on the other hand go either to Mexico or somewhere else or make their own guns, and then when they invade a law-abiding person's home the latter can't defend themselves. Gun laws actually increase the crime rate, not the other way around.

Paragraph 3: While assault rifles and such aren't really necessary, they do come out to be useful sometime, especially in times of war. Other guns are necessary for self-defence. Take a look at Britain and Sweden, for example. A buttload of types of guns are illegal there, and it's illegal to defend yourself. As I've said before, if a murderer or robber decides he wants to murder or rob you, you have to let him do it or you can face years in prison. The state of New York is actually considering this. Imagine being in the position of the guy being murdered or robbed, and being unable to defend yourself.

You're comparing a state that got around 19,000,000 to a state up which got around 731,000? Obviously there's going to be some murders.. and NYC have a history of high crime rate.
And for one, New York doesn't allow guns, but the other states around it allows purchasing them. Making the no gun rule kinda pointless.

So you would let people buy guns so they can reproduce the massacre that happened to the elementary school? Because by allowing guns, that's basically what you're allowing. And as I said above, just because criminals won't obey the law, means that we shouldn't make rules at all? By thinking like that, you're making it all the more easier for criminals to commit crime. You're also talking about criminals going to Mexico to get guns. Well I'm pretty sure people would rather have them travel to another state and take their chances with the border instead of them running to their local grocery store buying a gun and going on a killing spree 5 minutes later.

Why would anyone need an assault rifle? War? What war? I think you're playing too much Call Of Duty and Grand Theft Auto.
You wanna compare crimes in different states? How about we compare Canada to USA? In 2000 USA's robbery rate was 65% higher than Canada's, aggravated assault was was around the double of Canada, murder rate? Triple of Canada.
Also, 70% of murders made in the US are committed with firearms. How about Canada? 30%.

Why is it so low? Because Canada got a very strict policy about gun control.
Around 15% of Canadians own a gun. 2.9% of those owners own handguns. Whereas 42% of Americans own firearms and 17% of them own handguns. Also, automatic rifles are completely completely illegal to own for Canadians. Also, it's illegal to carry handguns in the street, unless you can prove that your life is in danger and you really need protection. Even then, it is very rare that those cases happen.

So what do you prefer? Allowing guns and also allowing murder to still be committed or having a very strict gun control and have a very low murder rate?

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.